21–30 of 264 posts
Zero - The Number of Applications that Can only be Developed in Python 3
or
7456324 - The number of companies that only use Python 2.x
Although these made up titles are slightly tongue-in-cheek, they do server to illustrate that for me at least, I do not have a compelling reason to switch to Python 3.
The new keyword-only arguments look great, but it looks like it relies on adding a " * " parameter that allows any number of arguments. What if I want the safety of keyword-only arguments, but I don't want varargs? Is there a way to do that?
def foo(*, x=None, y="")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't expect to have to use my keyboard to navigate a webpage. It's also not discoverable or prompted in any way.
Using the arrows keys for the slides has been a standard since the dawn of web presentations, a decade or so ago. Doesn't have to be more discoverable imho. As soon one finds it out, they can use the knowledge for any other presentation they chance upon -- and presentations remain clutter free, without prompts and extra navigational buttons for the rest.
So have arrows icons you can click to switch slides... Such as on Slideshare (coincidentally a decade old!).
Quite a nice presentation! But I just wanted to point out that the title is a bit presumptuous. I don't refuse to upgrade to Python 3, it's that the default Python for most distributions is 2 (sometimes as far back as 2.6). If you want to write a user-space tool with Python you can either require additional dependency setup, bundle a full interpreter with your package, or just write Python 2.7/6 code that is forward…
Does anyone use 2.x by choice? I've only seen it required as to not break legacy code.
I'm impressed how much Python seems stuck on older versions. What went wrong?
It was source-level incompatible with older code so it couldn't be used as a smooth transition like... almost any other language upgrade I've ever seen. Breaking code like this was a big mistake in my opinion - it resulted in many people sticking on the old version for code and library compatibility. There are still libraries which don't work on Python 3, though now fairly few of them. In addition to that, the unicod…
And while it isn't trivial, it is easy enough to just deal with bytes in 3.x.
The new keyword-only arguments look great, but it looks like it relies on adding a " * " parameter that allows any number of arguments. What if I want the safety of keyword-only arguments, but I don't want varargs? Is there a way to do that?
This is covered in the link. Just put a * without a name, as in def foo(*, x=None, y="") (Edit) The specific slide: http://www.asmeurer.com/python3-presentation/slides.html#16
This is a very good feature, but a weird syntax!
I'm impressed how much Python seems stuck on older versions. What went wrong?
It was source-level incompatible with older code so it couldn't be used as a smooth transition like... almost any other language upgrade I've ever seen. Breaking code like this was a big mistake in my opinion - it resulted in many people sticking on the old version for code and library compatibility. There are still libraries which don't work on Python 3, though now fairly few of them. In addition to that, the unicod…
Does anyone use 2.x by choice? I've only seen it required as to not break legacy code.
I hear some people really really prefer `print as statement`, but I've never seem them in real life.